cm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 20 hours agoWebplemmy.mlimagemessage-square152fedilinkarrow-up1554arrow-down1117 cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1437arrow-down1imageWebplemmy.mlcm0002@piefed.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 20 hours agomessage-square152fedilink cross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squaretyler@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down3·19 hours agoBut that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
minus-squareflamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up50·19 hours agoLossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
minus-squareCarighan Maconar@piefed.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·14 hours agoWatch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
minus-squarevithigar@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up3·7 hours agoXerox did that ages ago. https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
minus-squareulterno@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·7 hours ago did that ages ago That’s the point of revolution, no? Going back to something that was in the past, except giving it a new name and context:P
But that’s not got anything to do with quality. That’s compression size
Lossless encoding, by definition, won’t have any quality loss.
Watch some startup “invent” a revolutionary lossless format that discards some information.
Xerox did that ages ago.
https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning
That’s the point of revolution, no?
Going back to something that was in the past, except giving it a new name and context:P